OBJECTIVE: Anti-TNF-α agents are remarkably effective in the treatment of SpAs. However, 30% of patients withdraw from anti-TNF-α agents yearly because of inadequate efficacy or side effects. The objective of this study was to assess in current practice the response to a second and a third anti-TNF-α. METHODS: Retrospectively, all records of patients who had received at least two anti-TNF-α agents have been studied. For axial forms, treatment was considered effective if 3 months after switching the patient had a favourable expert opinion or showed an improvement in BASDAI of at least 2 on a scale of 0-10 or an improvement of 50% (BASDAI 50). For peripheral forms, the treatment was considered effective if the patient had a favourable expert opinion or if a clinical improvement of >30% of the swollen and tender joint counts was established. The reasons for switching were: (i) primary non-responder; (ii) loss of efficacy; and (iii) occurrence of side effects. To identify response predictor factors bivariate analysis was performed. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy-seven patients under anti-TNF-α agents were treated and 99 patients had received at least two anti-TNF-α agents. Twenty-eight of these 99 patients had been treated with three anti-TNF-α agents. Following the failure of a first anti-TNF-α, the response to a second agent was satisfactory in 80.8%. Patients who had received a third anti-TNF-α following failure of the first two also showed a satisfactory response in 82.1%. The reason for switching from the first or second agent was not predictive of the response. CONCLUSION: In the event of failure or intolerance to anti-TNF-α in the treatment of SpAs, performing a first or second switch produces a satisfactory therapeutic response.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paccou et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: